Law & Disorder —

Viacom’s billion-dollar lawsuit lives on

The billion-dollar Viacom lawsuit against YouTube/Google trudges on. After a federal judge sided completely with YouTube in summary judgment, Viacom has now filed its appeal to take the case to the next level.

Judge Louis Stanton's opinion on the case came out last month. The brief opinion agreed with YouTube that the company had a "safe harbor" against such lawsuits because the infringing video clips in question were uploaded by third parties. In the judge's view, the DMCA takedown notification system was working just fine, and Viacom had no right to go further and seek money directly from YouTube.

Viacom said at the time, "We intend to seek to have these issues before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible." The company was not allowed to file an appeal when the opinion appeared because the judgment had not been officially entered by the court. That happened yesterday; today, Viacom appealed to the Second Circuit.

Given the issues involved and their importance for the entire Internet, the outcome of this case could prove crucial—and the lawsuit could well advance from the Second Circuit to the Supreme Court before it's settled.

So if Viacom wins and sets precedence, I could post some Harry Potter stuff, and Ars would be sued.

Cool.

---

This is btw. for reasons like this that piratebay.org claims to not moderate their site, I believe there was a Swedish ruling once that said that once you moderated a forum, you were also liable for the content present there. So the answer is just to not moderate it at all (I suspect they have removed childporn though, in silence).

The irony is that Viacom actually bitched when Google via Youtube pulled Viacom's material that Viacom had uploaded because Viacom's legal department filed DMCA takedown notices. Viacom actually used third parties to place their material on Youtube, then complained about it. More importantly is that Youtube complied with every takedown notice in a very shot time. I fail to see how they won't have safe harbor given the speedy compliance with every takedown notice they receive.

Quote:

"when Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007. By the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them."

The irony is that Viacom actually bitched when Google via Youtube pulled Viacom's material that Viacom had uploaded because Viacom's legal department filed DMCA takedown notices. Viacom actually used third parties to place their material on Youtube, then complained about it. More importantly is that Youtube complied with every takedown notice in a very shot time. I fail to see how they won't have safe harbor given the speedy compliance with every takedown notice they receive.

Quote:

"when Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007. By the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them."

I think that says it all.

That sounds like a huge attempt at a "gotcha!" moment that backfired massively, as far as I can tell (from a quick google), this is what the judge said about the issue, pointing out how well the system worked.

Seems to me that someone at Viacom is pissy that Google probably made money while no one at Viacom bothered to file take down notices. I'm not sure what suing Google is meant to do though, there's certainly no clear breach of the law here, someone at Viacom just needs to suck it up and accept that they should have been vigilant.

FACT: Viacom knowingly and deliberately posted their own clips on YouTube.FACT: Viacom attempted to obfuscate the source of those clips.REASONABLE CONCLUSION: Viacom attempted to defraud the US Federal Court system in order to "win" huge damages from Google under false pretenses, which Viacom knew were false before filing this suit.

The irony is that Viacom actually bitched when Google via Youtube pulled Viacom's material that Viacom had uploaded because Viacom's legal department filed DMCA takedown notices. Viacom actually used third parties to place their material on Youtube, then complained about it. More importantly is that Youtube complied with every takedown notice in a very shot time. I fail to see how they won't have safe harbor given the speedy compliance with every takedown notice they receive.

Quote:

"when Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007. By the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them."

I think that says it all.

That sounds like a huge attempt at a "gotcha!" moment that backfired massively, as far as I can tell (from a quick google), this is what the judge said about the issue, pointing out how well the system worked.

Seems to me that someone at Viacom is pissy that Google probably made money while no one at Viacom bothered to file take down notices. I'm not sure what suing Google is meant to do though, there's certainly no clear breach of the law here, someone at Viacom just needs to suck it up and accept that they should have been vigilant.

Yeah, I also think a part of it is they are pissed that YouTube got advertising money by displaying clips they did not authorize.

Also, I honestly think Viacom and similar ilk would like to shut down any possible competition for their entertainment options. I think they hate you having any entertainment option that does not require paying them for it, again and again and again. The certainly don't want people to create their own, instead of paying them. So if they could make sites like YouTube just "go away" I can't see them anything but happy about it. (Except for their marketing group who wants to put out viral advertising on them).

I also think they want everyone else to pay for the policing of the web for anything that infringes their copyright. They want it done, but don't want to have to pay for it. I can understand the notion, but with how slanted copyright law already is toward the rights holders, I have almost no sympathy for them, even before they pull crap like this lawsuit. Certainly not enough to say we should pay for policing their copyright for them.

The irony is that Viacom actually bitched when Google via Youtube pulled Viacom's material that Viacom had uploaded because Viacom's legal department filed DMCA takedown notices. Viacom actually used third parties to place their material on Youtube, then complained about it. More importantly is that Youtube complied with every takedown notice in a very shot time. I fail to see how they won't have safe harbor given the speedy compliance with every takedown notice they receive.

Quote:

"when Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007. By the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them."

I think that says it all.

That sounds like a huge attempt at a "gotcha!" moment that backfired massively, as far as I can tell (from a quick google), this is what the judge said about the issue, pointing out how well the system worked.

Seems to me that someone at Viacom is pissy that Google probably made money while no one at Viacom bothered to file take down notices. I'm not sure what suing Google is meant to do though, there's certainly no clear breach of the law here, someone at Viacom just needs to suck it up and accept that they should have been vigilant.

Yeah, I also think a part of it is they are pissed that YouTube got advertising money by displaying clips they did not authorize.

Also, I honestly think Viacom and similar ilk would like to shut down any possible competition for their entertainment options. I think they hate you having any entertainment option that does not require paying them for it, again and again and again. The certainly don't want people to create their own, instead of paying them. So if they could make sites like YouTube just "go away" I can't see them anything but happy about it. (Except for their marketing group who wants to put out viral advertising on them).

I also think they want everyone else to pay for the policing of the web for anything that infringes their copyright. They want it done, but don't want to have to pay for it. I can understand the notion, but with how slanted copyright law already is toward the rights holders, I have almost no sympathy for them, even before they pull crap like this lawsuit. Certainly not enough to say we should pay for policing their copyright for them.

I'll police it for them, could they kindly send me absolute every show, movie, video they want protected so that I can watch it all and look to see if its used somewhere. Also send me all the musics too. Because you know, I'd need this stuff if I was a 3rd party policing the internets for you. Seriously how are YouTube moderators supposed to know who actually owns the right to some random clip.

I might add that I am glad I stopped feeding these corporate pigs like viacom,mpaa,riaanone of them get a dime out of me.i am sick of their lame behavior towards us consumers as well as their attitude towards other businesses.if i really want a film i will just buy it used somewhere.viacom you are a piece of dog poo

I might add that I am glad I stopped feeding these corporate pigs like viacom,mpaa,riaanone of them get a dime out of me.i am sick of their lame behavior towards us consumers as well as their attitude towards other businesses.if i really want a film i will just buy it used somewhere.viacom you are a piece of dog poo

Yeah, I also think a part of it is they are pissed that YouTube got advertising money by displaying clips they did not authorize.

I thought when this lawsuit started YouTube wasn't even displaying ads yet.

I honestly didn't use YouTube back then enough to pay attention to whether or not it served ads. My wife and kids used it much more than I do, and might know when they started putting up ads. I just assumed since someone else mentioned money, that YouTube was getting money from ads at the time.

I guess I do remember people wondering how YouTube would ever make any money, so they may well have still been sorting it all out...

If they were not advertising on YouTube then, it seems even more to be they just want to be able to control everything to their benefit, regardless of cost to others.